linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] scsi: ufs: Modulize ufs-bsg

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:19:50 -0800
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     cang@...eaurora.org
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        asutoshd@...eaurora.org, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
        rnayak@...eaurora.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, saravanak@...gle.com, salyzyn@...gle.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        Pedro Sousa <pedrom.sousa@...opsys.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        Venkat Gopalakrishnan <venkatg@...eaurora.org>,
        Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] scsi: ufs: Modulize ufs-bsg

On 12/17/19 12:56 AM, cang@...eaurora.org wrote:
> Even in the current ufs_bsg.c, it creates two devices, one is ufs-bsg,
> one is the char dev node under /dev/bsg. Why this becomes a problem
> after make it a module?
> 
> I took a look into the pci_driver, it is no different than making ufs-bsg
> a plain device. The only special place about pci_driver is that it has its
> own probe() and remove(), and the probe() in its bus_type calls the
> probe() in pci_driver. Meaning the bus->probe() is an intermediate call
> used to pass whatever needed by pci_driver->probe().
> 
> Of course we can also do this, but isn't it too much for ufs-bsg?
> For our case, calling set_dev_drvdata(bsg_dev, hba) to pass hba to
> ufs_bsg.c would be enough.
> 
> If you take a look at the V3 patch, the change makes the ufs_bsg.c
> much conciser. platform_device_register_data() does everything for us,
> initialize the device, set device name, provide the match func,
> bus type and release func.
> 
> Since ufs-bsg is somewhat not a platform device, we can still add it
> as a plain device, just need a few more lines to get it initialized.
> This allows us leverage kernel's device driver model. Just like Greg
> commented, we don't need to re-implement the mechanism again.

Hi Can,

Since ufs-bsg is not a platform device I think it would be wrong to 
model ufs-bsg devices as platform devices.

Please have a look at the bus_register() and bus_unregister() functions 
as Greg KH asked. Using the bus abstraction is not that hard. An example 
is e.g. available in the scsi_debug driver, namely the pseudo_lld_bus.

Thanks,

Bart.